Payne v Long [2020] FCAFC 170

Payne v Long [2020] FCAFC 170

The Court held that the course constituted a valid special measure within the meaning of s 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Art 1(4) of the Convention. The conduct of the respondents in prioritising indigenous applicants and not enrolling the non-indigenous appellant was taken in furtherance of the sole purpose of advancing a disadvantaged group, and thus did not breach ss 9 or 13 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed and the orders of the primary judge upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['racial Discrimination' 'special Measures' 'equal Opportunity' 'provision of Educational Services' 'statutory Interpretation']
['human Rights' 'administrative Law' 'discrimination Law'] ['racial Discrimination' 'special Measures' 'equal Opportunity' 'provision of Educational Services' 'statutory Interpretation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the refusal to enrol the appellant in a vocational education course constituted unlawful racial discrimination under ss 9 and 13 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)' "Whether the course was a 'special measure' exempted by s 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Art 1(4) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" 'Whether the application and administration of enrolment priority and fee exemptions for indigenous students discriminated unlawfully against the appellant']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the course constituted a valid special measure within the meaning of s 8 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and Art 1(4) of the Convention. The conduct of the respondents in prioritising indigenous applicants and not enrolling the non-indigenous appellant was taken in furtherance of the sole purpose of advancing a disadvantaged group, and thus did not breach ss 9 or 13 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed and the orders of the primary judge upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs."]